PARTICIPACIÓN DEL COMERCIO AL PRODUCTO INTERNO BRUTO

The zhou 州, or canton, is a well-known administrative unit granted to lords (jun or

hou) or officials as emoluments. The exact size of a canton in the Chu state is still

uncertain, and information from traditionally transmitted texts varies, sometimes

indicating 2,500 households (jia 家),103 sometimes 100 hamlets (li), which is equivalent

to 10,000 households.104 An exact idea of the size of a canton is unavailable, but we can

estimate by looking into the Xincai 新蔡 Chuslips, which was excavated from the tomb

of Cheng, Lord of Pingye (Pingye jun Cheng平夜君成), who died in 377 B.C.E. and was

a relative of the Chu king.105 The slips itself contains no records about the types of local

units that belonged to Cheng, yet the slips record numerous political units, including

townships, hamlets, huo, and yu, as lower units, implying that Cheng was the beneficiary

of a canton called Pingye. According to the Xincai slips, there were twenty-seven

townships, one new constructed hamlet, four huos and eight yus subordinate to the

101 _{Chen Wei, Baoshan Chu jian chutan, 73-74.} 102 _{Liu Xinfang, Baoshan Chu jian jiegu, 69-70.}

103 _{Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 and Jia Gongyan 賈公彥 annotated, Zhouli zhushu 周禮注疏, in Shisan jing zhushu} 十三經注疏 (Beijing: Zhonghuashuju, 2008), “dasitu 大司徒,” 10/707.

104 _{Dai Wang 戴望 annotated, Guanzi jiaozheng 管子校正, in Zhuzi jicheng 諸子集成, vol. 5 (Beijing:}

Zhonghua shuju, 1996), “Du di 度地,” 57/303.

Pingye canton, giving us a picture of how massive the territory was. 106 Perhaps the land bestowed on Lord Pingye was exceptional, considering his relationship with the Chu king.

The question surrounding the Chu canton is whether the units were administered by government officials or by lords who were granted territory. Besides the fact that Pinye

canton was bequeathed to Cheng, a lord (jun), Chen Wei argued that districts and cantons

governed themselves separately because some officials belonged to cantons and because

cantons were directly supervised by the Left Intendant, not by district officials.107

However, the fact that cantons assigned officials who received orders from the central government does not prove that they were separate and distinct from district-based local government.

Baoshan slip 122 notes a murder case that made Yangcheng district chief (陽城公)

Yang Yi 樣睪 issue three different warrants to detain three murder suspects. The

following is a report by officials who failed to execute their “tally,” which worked as a warrant, in order to detain a murder suspect:

Using the tally (jie 孑)108 to detain suspect Gu Nüfan, [canton] chief Zang Shen

(jiagong Zang Shen 加公臧申) and hamlet chief Li Fu [failed and] returned the

106 _{Xincai slips slip numbers for each unit are listed here: huo (jia3-251, 264, 281, 285, 318, 319); yu (jia3-}

251, 264, 380, ling-386, 393, 464, 514, 638); yi (jia3-275, 315); li (jia2-27, jia3-74, 77, 179, 228, 262, 285, 352, 416, yi3-23, 54, yi4-88, ling-30, 72, 88, 91, 116, 168, 403, 455, 524, 529, 539, 586, 596).

107 _{Chen Wei, Baoshan Chu jian chutan, 88.}

108 _{Liu Xinfang and Li Ling read the graph as jie 節. Liu Xinfang, Baoshan Chu jian jiegu, 77. (originally}

printed in Liu Xinfang 劉信芳, “Chu jian wenzi kaoshi wu ze楚簡文字考釋五則,” in Yu Shengwu jiaoshou bainian danchen jinian wenji于省吾教授百年誕辰紀念文集, ed. Jilin daxue guwenzi yanjiushi (Jilin: Jilin daxue chubanshe, 1996); Li Ling 李零, Li Ling xixuan ji 李零自選集 (Guilin: Guangxi sifan daxue chubanshe, 1998), 139.

tally (fan jie返孑), saying, “Gu Nüfan had already fled before our arrival, and the

tally did not arrive [on time].”109

孑執雇女返、加工臧申、里公利父臣, 返孑言曰: 女返既走於前, 孑不及。

The title jiagong加公 of Zang Shen, which comes first in the slip, is a title for the canton

chief,110 who had authority over “hamlet chief Li Fu.” Noteworthy is that a canton chief

followed the orders of a district chief and that he received a tally from the district in order to detain a suspect. Having to return the tally to the district also implies that the provinces could not act on their own without proper authorization.

In addition, He Hao explained that lords who share the same geographical name with district chiefs (e.g., Lord of Luyang 魯陽 and Lord of Yangling 漾陵) had their cantons inside the respective districts (i.e., Luyang and Yangling), implying that cantons were

geographically smaller than districts.111 We do not know the exact reason why a canton

was placed inside a district, yet we can assume the central government wanted to take control over the region and prevent the lord from becoming a political threat. In this case, placing a canton geographically inside a district would make the Chu government easier to supervise.

To assume that the political status of lords was diminished in every way would be a mistake.112 They were still able to collect taxes and had certain privilege in the trading

                                                                                                                109 _{Baoshan, 357, slip 122.}

110 _{The reason canton chiefs used a different title is unclear. Because cantons were granted as compensation}

to governmental officials and nobles, they probably had the right to appoint their chiefs in order to govern the territory. The character jia 加, according to Liu Xinfang, must read as jia 家, meaning that chiefs were personal retainers. Liu Xinfang, Baoshan Chu jian jiegu, 36.

111 _{He Hao 何浩, “Luyang jun, Luyang gong ji Luyang she xian de wenti 魯陽君, 魯陽公及魯陽設縣的問} 題,” Zhongyuan wenwu, no. 47-51 (1994): 50; Chen Wei, Baoshan Chu jian chutan, 106.

112 _{Chen Wei pointed out that there are records in the received texts of Chu lords serving in the central}

markets, as will be shown later in the E Jun Qi tallies. However, in local administrative matters, the officials took charge, not the lords, granted the latter only restricted influence even in their beneficed territories. As the Baoshan and Geling slips reveal, they had no

judicial authority, and their beneficed lands were governed by an official entitled jiagong,

chief of cantons. Most of the records related to lords are about their participation in state rituals and records of ritual activities in their domain.